CIVIL SOCIETY S ROLE IN THE OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP Conclusions of the regional Open Government Partnership Meeting Chile, January 10-112013 and pre-conference Civil Society activities January 8-9
I. Introduction This document was written by the Regional Partnership for Freedom of Expression and Information (Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información) and the Americas Department of Transparency International. It contains the conclusions reached by these organisations at the regional Open Government Partnership (OGP) meeting in Chile on January 10-11, 2013 as well as the conclusions from civil society activities held prior to the meeting on January 8-9. Both networks jointly made an effort to invite representatives from local civil society so as to generate a balanced debate with the represented states at this international meeting. The meeting built on the support of the World Bank, the Ford Foundation and the foundation Open Society Institute. II. Main Conclusions Civil society meetings In the framework of the scheduled activities, and prior to the regional OGP meetings on January 10 11, two meetings of the region s civil society network took place: Regional Work and Coordination Meeting on January 8 and Plenary Meeting with regional organisations on January 9. The following conclusions were reached: Access to information as a right + Open Government to strengthen transparency + Open data as a tool = the Open Government Partnership 1. Mechanisms to facilitate and guarantee the participation of civil society organisations must be established. This should include organisations from countries that are already part of OGP; organisations from non-eligible countries; and organisations from eligible countries that do not currently participate. The OGP is an opportunity to generate processes of cooperation between civil society organisations and governments. Insufficient mechanisms for participation, the lack of criteria for transparency and clear institutional mechanisms within the different OGP instances are seen as potentially troublesome and raise doubts as to the role of civil society in this process.
The civil societies of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, which are still not part of this international initiative, must also be included in OGP activities and processes. Their exclusion implies a two-fold marginalisation of the civil societies of these countries concerning the OGP s function as a platform for dialogue. Civil society organisations require a space that is independent of the interests and the perceptions of the country these organisations come from. OGPs can provide a platform for these organisations to help create incentives for access to data and transparency in their countries and put these issues on the agenda. Formal OGP channels to consult and reply to the requests by and needs of civil society organisations are required. The unity of civil society as a function of OGP should not be treated as independent from the processes and strategies implemented by regional and international civil society organisations and networks. Otherwise a lack of coordination is likely to develop in the strategies implemented by these organisations in their countries and at the regional level. Open government is more of a political than a technical challenge. Therefore it is not only essential to build upon the political experience and expression of civil society and that of regional and international networks, but also to strengthen the integration of their technical expertise both in the different phases of discussion of OGP, as well as in its institutional structure. 2. The independent reporting mechanism (IRM) ought to guarantee participation and transparency as well as confidentiality in order to protect stakeholders at risk. The IRM should not be limited to measuring the implementation of action plans, but should instead also aim to assess the impact of such measures. This is to ensure that the plans provide a meaningful contribution to the advancement of access to information and transparency. It is important to clearly define the methodology used in the reports and the ways in which civil society is to participate in the assessment of the IRM process. Mechanisms to ensure the transparency of reporting and the assessment of results are also required.
OGP need to be in a position to receive information from civil society actors confidentially to prevent state coercion, especially in cases where governments are clearly not meeting their commitments; this is particularly worrisome in countries faced by more complex situations. Fundamentally, IRM need to be legitimised by civil society through the development of a transparent and participatory process. 3. Besides the Executive Power, the effect of OGP over other state institutions must be strategically assessed taking into account local and regional context Action plans should prioritise a commitment by the executive because the executive has the greatest powers to implement OGP goals. An expansion of the efforts to include other powers and state bodies, such as the judiciary and parliament, is possible in so far commitments are made by the executive and as long as regional and local priorities are taken into account. 4. A plan for the institutionalisation of OGP needs to be developed ensuring civil society representatives can only be elected through transparent and participatory institutional processes, and in a manner that represents civil society in all of its diversity. All civil society representatives participating in the different OGP committees and institutions must be elected through open and transparent institutional processes. Appropriate mechanisms will have to be established to ensure the inclusion of regional and international networks. In order to avoid duplicating the efforts that have already been made and to make the most of the opportunities provided by the strategies already in use, cooperation should be sought with existing regional and international networks. Open government is more of a political than a technical challenge. Therefore, it is fundamental to not only make use of the political experience and expressions of civil
society and regional and international networks, but also to strengthen them by integrating their technical expertise into the different steps of discussion associated with OGP and its institutional structure. These institutional spaces should ensure accountability and be able to rely on adequate information mechanisms. 5. It is required to define an internal and external communication strategy for OGP, spearheaded by a consultative process Communication mechanisms need to be strengthened, both in OGP institutional mechanisms as well as in the commitments made by states and the role of civil society in the process, as there is often confusion and little transparency in such processes. OGP communication strategies must be participatory. They need to be developed in a manner that enables all participants to provide input and secures the experience of organisations and regional and international networks. 6. OGP should initiate a deliberative process to generate a definition of Open Government as well as its basic components. This is required because there is still no shared definition of OGP. The absence of a shared OGP definition of open government generates great uncertainty about the kind of measures governments ought to include in action plans as well as about the role of civil society. A broad and deliberative process is required that extends to all actors and helps establish consensus on the basic components of open government. Transparency International and the Regional Partnership propose using the following definition based on minimal requirements: Access to information as a right + Open Government to strengthen transparency + Open data as a tool = the Open Government Partnership. It is important to count with a clear definition of citizen participation that emphasises equality within OGP. This is to prevent governments from implementing formal processes preventing real and effective participation of people, organisations and networks.
Regional OGP meeting and workshops During the plenary meetings and workshops on January 10-11 the following conclusions were reached: 1. OGP requires an institutional framework: This initiative is an opportunity: its flexible and informal platform offers equal footing to states and civil society, a fact that strengthens democracy and provides for a change of culture. If the actors involved are to maintain their commitments over time, a reliable institutional framework is required that provides clear rules of participation as much for states as civil society concerning their role and responsibilities. This framework does not currently exist; a fact that leads to uncertainty on how states relate to OGP, and how to jointly develop strategies with civil society and regional and international networks as the basis of action plans and assessments. As of today no clear rules exist that provide a definition of the form a discussion should take if it is to provide equal footing to governments and civil society. 2. The right to access public information is an essential part of OGP: The OGP principles and objectives largely coincide with those of the right to access public information. These include the availability of government information, promotion of participation by society and increased accountability. The right to access public information must play a central role in this agenda. In this sense the contributions by the inter-american court following the Claude Reyes case in 2006 and the political consensus surrounding the implementation of the Model Inter-American Law on Access to Information of the OAS in 2010 are key to the development of parameters and indicators that will help select measures to include in action plans and to review the impact of such measures at the regional level.
In our region, referrals to the right to access public information help counter the new concepts of popular democracy and support a democratic agenda; a region where some governments feel threatened by the press and their citizens, a fact that has blocked progress in transparency. 3. The role of civil society and networks needs to be strengthened: OGP generates new dynamism in the relations between the state and civil society. As a part of this dynamic, the idea of open government is expressed in the form of a new social contract based on equality, collaboration and mutual responsibility. It is therefore important to strengthen spaces for dialogue between government, civil society and the private sector. To succeed, OGP needs to be able to count on the participation of civil society and regional and international networks of organisations. They can give extra strength to this agenda by contributing specific knowledge on these issues as well as about the needs of citizens. Accordingly, it is necessary to create clear rules that enable them to participate in the national and international spheres generated in the OGP context. In the future, civil society in countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador will also need to be integrated. Their governments are currently not involved in OGP, but including these countries would help expand the effects of the international initiative. 4. Mechanisms need to be generated for real, equal and effective citizen participation in action plans: A lack of consultation on the action plans developed by numerous countries has prevented civil society from contributing its experience. Effectively, participation has been very limited, and most steps towards participation have been more formal than real. Additionally, measures within the plans to provide information have been limited to areas with little social use. It is important to ensure citizens real, equal and effective participation in national mechanisms to generate action plans. OGPs must include clear rules for everyone involved
on how to organise participation. This is the only way to ensure the popularisation of open government. The exclusion of civil society from the development of action plans has created uncertainty concerning the real impacts of the measures they contain as well as their actual contribution towards providing access to public information and transparency. 5. A shared definition of open government is required: The lack of a definition of open government creates many problems. In the case of action plans, it means it is impossible to generate parameters that define what should and should not be included. Transparency International and the Regional Partnership propose using the minimal requirements contained in the following formula: Access to information as a right + Open Government to strengthen transparency + Open data as a tool = the Open Government Partnership. The bodies that guarantee access to public information have an important role to play in ensuring the development of a shared definition, as well as in the generation of parameters for the inclusion of measures in action plans. 6. More homogeneous, focused and measurable action plans are needed: Due to the different concepts of open government, action plans tend to be quite heterogeneous and lack focus, which can create problems for assessment. This is clear from the large number of non-incremental initiatives (stemming from earlier government developments); plans that are so ambitious that they cannot hold up to expectations; misinterpretations of open government as e-government; and the lack of a real central role for civil society. For progress towards greater transparency that is not limited to publicity measures, the logic of check lists during assessment needs to be left behind. Consequently, it is important that plans promote the disclosure of information that is useful to society.
7. Expanding the reach of OGP to further state powers must be strategically evaluated in line with the local and regional situation: Action plans must involve central government because the government is principally responsible for implementing public policies of transparency and access to information. Once real progress is made with the executive, efforts can be expanded to the judiciary and the legislature as well as other institutions of control according to local and regional needs. OGP will have to adapt its structures prior to including these powers and state institutions. 8. The role of oversight bodies in developing access to public information and OGP should be recognised: Today oversight bodies have no formal role within OGP, even though they watch over and promote policies of transparency and access to public information at the country level. Their formal and effective inclusion in OGP and in the implementation of action plans is fundamental, because many of their measures deal with access to information. Oversight bodies play a crucial role in guaranteeing that the information available in action plans is not dependent on government. Therefore these bodies need a certain degree of autonomy. 9. There is a need to create strategies for cooperation and networking among all involved stakeholders: Governments and OGPs need to formally adopt a collaborative approach based on the concepts of parity and equality and using the political capital of international civil society networks to motivate change; this is essential to all phases of the process (from development, to follow-up of plans, as well as in the international OGP institutional spaces).
Strategies for cooperation with networks of oversight bodies, civil society networks, and institutions such as the World Bank, the Ford Foundation and Open Society need to be strengthened because they all share a joint interest: achieving progress in transparency. Until now there has been no real inclusion of regional and international organisations and networks, which means no use has been made of civil society s political capital to promote OGP commitments. Zoe Reiter Programme Manager Americas Department Transparency International Karina Banfi Executive Secretary Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información
APPENDIX This section provides a summary of the most important activities that were held during the regional OGP meeting. 1. Coordination meeting between regional OGP civil society networks in Chile (January 8, 2013). 2. Plenary meeting of civil society organisations (January 9, 2013). 3. Inauguration and 1 st plenary session. Open government challenges in the Americas (January 10, 2013). 4. Second plenary session. Comparison of OGP action plans (January 10, 2013). 5. Plenary session. Access to public information in the OGP agenda. The role of oversight bodies for control (January 11, 2013). 6. Workshop on the challenges of open government. Talks about lessons learned and the future of OGP (January 10 2013). 7. Open government workshop. Revising action plans (January 11, 2013). 8. A summary of workshop participation by civil society. Alianza Regional and Transparency International (January 10 and 11). 9. List of Alianza Regional and Transparency International delegates. 10. A review of outcomes and the lessons learned.